View full sizeFormer Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman has turned to the U.S. Supreme Court to review his 2006 federal corruption conviction. (The Birmingham News file)

MONTGOMERY, Alabama -- Former Gov. Don Siegelman today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his
2006 conviction in a government corruption case arguing that there was
insufficient evidence to convict him of bribery.

The petition was filed with the high court today, according to Siegelman
lawyer Sam Heldman.

"By granting review, this court would have the opportunity to right an
injustice, to exonerate a man who has committed no crime, and to clarify the
law in a manner that will be important to all candidates, elected officials, and politically engaged citizens," Siegelman's
lawyers wrote in the petition.

A federal jury in 2006 convicted Siegelman and HealthSouth founder
Richard Scrushy of federal funds bribery on accusations that Siegelman sold a
seat on a hospital regulatory board to Scrushy for $500,000 in donations to
Siegelman's 1999 lottery campaign.

A key question before the court, Siegelman's lawyers wrote is what is the legal line between campaign contribution and bribe.

Siegelman's lawyers wrote that there was no evidence that Siegelman and
Scrushy struck an "explicit quid pro quo" deal to swap the money for the
donation.

His lawyers wrote that,
at best, the trial testimony
of aides only showed that the governor "wanted" the
contribution and perhaps Scrushy "wanted' back on the board.

"In other words, there is certainly no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Governor Siegelman actually promised Scrushy, or overtly stated to or agreed with him, that an appointment to the (Certificate of Need) Board
would be given in exchange for contribution to the lottery campaign," Siegelman's lawyers wrote.

Allowing such "shaky
proof" could lead to a troubling number of
prosecutions, Siegelman's lawyers wrote, and it is important for politicians, donors and citizens to have a clear line between illegal and legal activity.

Siegelman is also
asking the court to review his convictions for honest services fraud and
obstruction of justice.